I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources that support your case. I judge based on who persuades me to their side. I prefer you not to spread. I can follow most of your case if you spread, but i have had people go to fast and they only way I understood their case was on cross ex. If i cannot understand you it will be hard for you to win. I have been judging speech and debate events for 7-8 years and have judged most events.

I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.

I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I was debating in college when critical arguments became widespread. I understand them and value them. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with. Please be clear with your decision calculus.

Experience: I have competed in almost every event and I know how each is supposed to go. I've qualified to Nationals twice and I'm currently an active NSDA Alumni offering judging for various schools.

Speech Events
I will be timing you, but you are also welcome to time yourself when appropriate. I will give hand signals if asked. I dislike when speakers try to fill all the time by repeating themselves or talking in circles. Quality over quantity.

Having all your themes and points connect to each other and tie together at the end is really important to me. The less disconnected tangents, the better.

If you are double entered, I will alter the speaking order if necessary to make sure you can give both speeches timely. Please speak up if you need this, since Tabroom doesn't always tell me.

Debate Events:

If evidence asked for in-round does not exist or is being blatantly misused, I will not vote for you. If there are claims of evidence being misread or used in an abusive way, I will look at it myself. Looking at evidence counts as part of your prep time.

Reading a card does not count as a point or rebuttal in itself. I will not accept it as such without your own analysis applied and you explaining it to me why it outweighs your opponents points or is more substantive than your opponent's card(s).

I am okay with assertiveness during cross, but don't be over the top. You are okay to cut off your opponents if they are rambling, but be respectful about it. I am not a big fan of someone trying forcing their opponents to answer questions in forced "yes or no". A good cross to me looks like advancing a conversation and making points, not just clarifying. If your opponent asks a reasonable question and you are being intentionally vague with your answers or stalling the clock, I will count it against you.

If you plan on spreading, please have your cases ready to share with your opponent(s) or me as necessary.

Email for evidence/case sharing: maeve.k.hall@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas:

I weigh most on the value/criterion debate. If I see it from one debater and not at all from another, my ballot is easy to write. If neither engages, I will have a hard time picking a winner. If both engage, then it's up to whoever convinces me which framework is best and who best upholds it.

Public Forum

Highlighting where in the chain of logic and evidence your opponent's arguments break is the most important to me on offense, especially when repeated speech after speech. That also means I'm looking to make sure impacts are accessed. The biggest numbers won't mean anything if your opponent explains they won't happen. A good round to me will usually look like both sides dropping smaller or weaker arguments and focusing on their biggest ones more and more as the round goes on.

Unless told otherwise, the framework I'll assume is cost-benefit analysis.

Policy:

Please ask for specifics in round

tl;dr

tech > truth, but i'm more likely to be persuaded by dynamic and engaging speakers

i'm bad at flowing. removing cards from your case and slowing down will enormously help you win my ballot.

if you try to use tech to box out less experienced/trad LD opponents you will not win my ballot. slow down, drop the jargon and meet them at their level to have the best chance to win.

i don't really care about cards, make smart arguments.

i flow arguments, not authors. if you reference an argument by the author, i will have no idea what you are referring to

i like K debate but i'm not experienced with it. slow down, explain in plain english, and clearly label the parts. K affs are cool but i prefer it if they still defend the resolution.

collapse, collapse, collapse. going for everything wins you nothing

Long Version for Tryhards and People With Too Much Time

I competed for 8 years in high school + college and am now the head coach at West High School. I've done pretty much every IE as well as Congress, NFA LD, British Parliamentary (kinda like worlds), IPDA and NPDA (parli) debates. My paradigm explains the default biases I have when judging, but I'm more than prepared to drop those assumptions if you make an argument that I should.

Also, if my ballot feedback seems rude, I'm sorry! I try to give concrete, actionable suggestions using as few words as possible so as to fit more good info into your ballot. I try to be maximally clear with my feedback, which can sometimes result in sounding short or rude. Please be aware that is not my intention!

On Accessibility

Accessibility is an a priori voting issue for me 100% of the time. Don't let the debate get toxic. Racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. is not acceptable in this space. And for those of you identifying as dudes; don't be a debate bro.

I prefer progressive style LD just because that's the form I'm most familiar with, but I do ask that debaters adapt to the style your opponent is comfortable with. This doesn't mean you need to take it easy on less tech-experienced opponents, but it does mean you need to make the round a space where they can understand your arguments and articulate responses to them. Essentially, I'm tech > truth, as long as both sides understand the tech at hand. If the status of your opponent's counterplan is "what's a conditionality?", then there is absolutely no way I am flowing your condo shell. If you run disclosure T against a trad aff with no plan text, I sign my ballot before the 1AR.

Spread at your own risk! I'm okay with some speed, but you should only speak as fast as you can enunciate. If your words are slurring into one another, I simply won't be able to flow everything, and I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments against your case. That said, if both teams are fine with speed, I'm fine with it too, and will do my best to keep up.

I also believe that the use of excessive speed to exclude less experienced/speed capable debaters is ascourge upon technical debate and I am absolutely itching to vote on speed bad arguments. If a clearly overwhelmed debater asks you to slow down, you refuse, and they say that they were excluded from the round because of it, I will sign my ballot then and there. If you intend to read your case faster than average debate speaking speed, you should always ask your opponents and the judge to clear you if they need it, and actually slow down if they do. There is no educational value to an activity where your opponent can't engage with you.

On Critical Debate:

I like a good K, especially when it's more niche than 'capitalism bad', but I doubly don't love when people run Ks they are obviously unfamiliar with and cannot explain in lay terms. I won't automatically vote down a non-topical K aff but I think the framework explanation you would need to justify torching neg ground will probably go way over my head.

You know what I love way more than a kritik? Critical framework on a policy case! I have a degree in political science and am a total policy wonk (I listen to public policy podcasts... for fun) but I also appreciate critical theory. To me, the theoretical perfect aff combines critical framework with radical public policy wonkery to solve a very real but small-scale problem.

On Impact Weighing

I practice rolling my eyes by listening to debaters try to make everything somehow link to an existential impact. Please don't do that. I don't want to roll my eyes at you.

Let's talk about anything else! Localized environmental impacts, impacts to non-human life, non-existentially threatening global conflicts, quality of life, cultural genocide, etc. I believe anything can be an impact if you have the framework to justify it, and I LOVE talking about non-terminal impacts.

Please don't bore me with econ arguments. I've honestly never heard a good one, and that includes from actual economists.

On Evidence

Most of my experience is with limited prep debate, so I believe cards help your argument but do not make it for you. It is entirely possible to win my ballot without a shred of evidence. Basically, here's how I evaluate arguments:

Strong carded arguments > strong analytical arguments >>> weak carded arguments > weak analytical arguments >>>>>>> your only rebuttal being "they didn't have a card for that"

Extend arguments, not authors. I don't flow authors.

Take up any evidence-related issues with tab or hash it out in round.

On Theory

I am totally willing to vote for theory, but you have to collapse to it. I think it's a little cheesy to say your opponent has made the round so unfair they need to lose, but also that your disad is still in play.

I am not generally persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I like using T as a strategy (time waster, distraction, link to disads/K, etc.) but if you're arguing that the purpose of T is to check back on abuse, then voting on it without demonstrated abuse cheapens the effectiveness of it.

I'm totally down for the RVI debate!

Congress: Congress is my favorite event to judge and was my favorite to compete in. I judge Congress on the paradigm of relevancy; essentially, what did you do or say to make me remember you? That means I evaluate the entire round, not just your speeches. Did you make main motions? Did you step in to correct a PO who made a mistake? Did you push for a germane amendment to legislation? Did other people say your name a lot? How often did I hear you asking questions? There's a lot more to Congress than just giving speeches. Make sure I remember your name.

Pre-written speeches are a plague upon this event, so they receive an automatic point deduction and will almost certainly result in you ranking lower than an extemporaneous speaker. Congress is definitionally, per the NSDA handbook, an extemporaneous speaking event. Notes are highly encouraged, just not fully written speeches. I also think reading speeches off electronic devices is pretty cringe. This event is like 90% downtime, you absolutely have time to transcribe your points onto a notepad in between speeches. If you just get rid of the laptop and put a couple bullet points on paper, that is possibly the easiest single way to make it to the top of my ballot.

Another easy way to win my ballot is by having fun with it! I firmly believe there is no such thing as too many jokes. Props are fun, go nuts with it! Make the round interesting. Call people out, by name. Lean into the roleplay elements, start beef with your fellow Representatives.

For my presiding officers: if you run a fast, fair, and efficient round, you'll rank in the top half of my ballot. Your job is to facilitate as many speeches as possible. Know the rules and follow them. ALWAYS DENY MOTIONS TO EXTEND CROSS EXAMINATION. Extending cross might be the only thing I hate more than pre-written speeches.

Know your role in the round. The first speakers on each side should construct the key points of the debate. Subsequent speakers should raise niche issues, build on arguments made by earlier speakers, and focus on rebuttal. Late-round speakers should try to crystallize the round, weigh impacts, etc. If you give a killer constructive as the last speech in the round, you won't be ranked very highly. If you are unable to keep the round interesting with new arguments and lots of clash, expect to lose points. If the debate is stale, I welcome any and all attempts to previous question.

Also, minor pet peeve, but you shouldn't say something is unconstitutional without saying exactly which part of the constitution it violates and why! This is congressional debate and the US constitution is a necessary paradigm to abide by, but if the Bush administration can come up with a creative argument to defend torture under the Constitution, you can figure something out.

PF: If I am judging this event it is against my will. Why can the negative speak first? Why are there so many cross examinations? What on earth is the point of the final focus? Ridiculous event!

All kidding aside, in the rare event I do judge PF, it's on the flow, but don't think you can get away with trying to make PF into policy. They literally made this event for the sole purpose of not being policy, and as a judge I have an obligation to uphold that norm. That means no plans, no counterplans, no theory, and no topicality.

And please, please please please please please don't talk over each other in cross. Even though I almost never judge this event I have somehow seen more debate bro-ery in PF than every other event combined. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, don't let it get to you.

IEs: The time limit for memorized events is ten minutes, not 10:30. The grace period exists to give you a buffer in case you go over, not an extra 30 seconds of material. This is doubly true if you choose to time yourself or use time signals! It's one thing if you go over without knowing your time, but if you go over while you're looking at a timer, that's pretty clear time limit abuse and your ranking will reflect that.

I participated in debate all through high school and placed at State three years in a row. I am now the parent of a congressional debater.

When I judge, I look for strong organization, confident delivery, and logical arguments backed by research.

I am not impressed by anyone who tries to make other people look stupid. The way you treat your competitors contributes to the overall atmosphere and should allow everyone to do their best. I have no tolerance for arrogance or snarkiness, especially if someone acts that way in an attempt to look clever.  

I appreciate creativity, enthusiasm, and professionalism.

You guys have worked so hard to get here! Enjoy the experience. Have multiple goals for yourself! Don't define success at this tournament too narrowly by only setting one goal, such as to break into semi finals.

Instead, identify at least FIVE goals that you hope to accomplish this week. :) That way, you will most likely achieve three or four of them! For example, your goals could be:

• to place
• to break into the final round (or semi or quarter)
• to give the best speech you have given this season
• to meet someone new at this tournament with whom you want to stay in touch
• to smile at or provide a pep talk to someone who seems nervous or stressed
• to make your judge laugh/cry/nod appreciatively/raise their eyebrows/respond in some way
• to support your teammates when they succeed
• to incorporate a story, personal example, or piece of research that you especially like 
• to not pass out or throw up
• to go out of your comfort zone in some way
• to have fun

This approach makes a big difference, whether you are competing in a tournament, training for a marathon, going on a trip, or executing a large-scale event. Multiple goals help you focus on the varied and valuable aspects of the experience, not just the outcome!

Namaste.